The only thing you keep pushing over and over is magazine limits and bans of legally owned magazines already in the hands of law abiding citizens. Who will compensate all of these gun owners for those magazines? At a fair market price? Not for some ludicrous $50 gift card.I don't know. Who says their fair market value will be $50?

Your initial rants talked incessantly about assault rifles and why anyone needs one when the fact is fully automatic weapons are heavily restricted, take an extreme permit process and include added fees and taxes. You wanted assault rifles out of the hands of law abiding citizens...that seems pretty clear.I've never advocated banning any type of semi-auto firearm. Sadly, you continue to claim otherwise.

Good luck with that...there is no way at all of knowing who has what for magazines. The truly paranoid, conspiracy wackos, could bury dozens if not hundreds of those magazines, and use legal 5 or 10 rounders to be able to remain proficient with their rifles. If they believe that the government is out to take their guns they will do what they feel is necessary to stop it.I always enjoy the paranoid ramblings of extremists. If the government did become as tyrannical as you believe could happen, you are delusional in believing that a militia armed with AR-15's is going to stand much of a chance against a military that has nuke subs, fighter planes, and smart bombs.

I believe laws that make sense, and have a positive impact on society are valuable...Laws that punish those that are law abiders will always find resistance and as those rights are further and further attacked the resistance will increase.How is restricting magazines to a lesser amount punishment?

Any time you go through an FFL there would be a required 48 hour waiting period (It may be longer in some states) when you purchased a pistol. There is currently no federal waiting period for long guns or shotguns. What would have to end is private sales at gun shows and that could easily be handled through an on site area with FFL dealers to do the paperwork, for a fee of course, or being paid by the gun show organizers to be there.I have no problem with that.

Initially, what you tried to broad stroke as assault rifles.No, I claimed that semi-auto rifles previously used by the miltary could have been considered the assault rifles of their era.

Okay, perhaps generic blather was a bit harsh. Your accepted dictionary is NOT using firearms industry correct defintions for specific types of firearms. You know like the newspapers calling SCBA oxygen masks.This is relevant if one believes the firearms industry is the final arbiter in weapons vocabulary.

Duh, it was just as ridiculous as you comparing legal firearms ownership to explosives and rocket launchers. Thanks for helping bolster the point I was trying to make.I'm not the one who brought up the hypothetical someone using nukes.

Again, your knowledge of current firearms laws makes discussing any of this with you very difficult. A fully automatic shotgun would require an FFL Class 3 license, a mountain of paperwork, extra fees and a $200 tax paid to the feds. You can't just walk into a gun store and buy one, anymore than you could go in and buy a select fire M-4, Ak-47, FNFAL, M14, Thompson submachine gun, Uzi, MP5, etc. The law, maybe you should do some research before you try to speak on a topic you clearly have zero knowledge of. Or are the laws as irrelevant to you as the proper nomenclature for the types of firearms?I'm not sure what point you are making here. I'm not the one advocating making it easier to own fully auto weapons. Though your description of what it takes to own one only shows the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute and that restrictions are very much capable of being enacted.

It's not hypothetical. A shotgun with buckshot is chosen by police departments and militaries the world over for its close range killing ability. The shotgun is also a favorite for home defense because of that same ability.It was a hypothetical in the context you used it. The context was the ability to kill numerous individuals at one time

You said no one needed an assault rifle...and then defined an assault rifle as a bolt action '03 Sringfield, a semi-automatic M1 Garand, and semi-automatic military styled rifles...And your chapion Feinsteain has declared my squirrel hunting .22 as an assault rifle...Funny. I stated those weapons would have been considered the assault weapons of their era. At which time you immediately broke out a new definition.

Yet you have said repeatedly that if the Sandy Hook shooter had had a smaller capacity magazine in his rifle, that may have been left in the trunk of his car, it would have been possible for him to be jumped by bystanders and stopped...So which is it? Case specific to Sandy Hook or just another diversion to support your ban of magazines from law abiding citizens?Both. A smaller capacity magazine would have allowed potential victims to stop the shooter. While that didn't happen in Sandy Hook it has happened in other instances. For some reason you refuse to believe that is a possibility despite it having been done.

I haven't posted a single hypothetical other than to show how absolutely ridiculous most of the nonsense you post is. Nice try though, no points will be awarded.Sure you have. Several times.

Your turn. This is fun watching your positions change and become more extreme.

Another moving target. The .223 will penetrate a 1/4 inch of steel at 700 yards. That factoid was given to me by an Army Ranger. How much more power does a projectile need to be considered "high power?"

Really? That's pretty interesting since reports out of Afghanistan had our troops being outgunned at ranges exceeding 300-500 meters. In fact the M-14 was brough back out of mothballs and many squads were issued 1 or more for a "dedicated marksman" to deal with longer range targets.

I'll take my chances of getting away from someone with a knife any day.

As a Patrol Sgt., I will tell you that I'm more afraid of someone armed with a knife than a gun. I have been shot at without result, but have been "cut" with a knife. Some may call me lucky, but I would argue that anytime I get hurt, I was unlucky.

“Guys if you get hurt, we’ll help you. If you get sick we’ll treat you. If you want to bitch and moan, then all I can tell you is to flick the sand out of your slit, suck it up or get the hell out!”
- Capt. Marc Cox CFD

Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.
-WINSTON CHURCHILL

Even with extrapolation of comparing their homicide by firearm rate to the US, they are still significantly lower.

I'm not going to argue this point with you, because you obviously don't care about statistics. I will however, agree that the homicide by firearm rate in Australia is lower. However it still proves that gun restrictions aren't the answer.

That makes an assumption the pro-gun crowd is open to any type of regulation. They are showing that isn't the case.

To be brutally up front and honest, no I'm not open to any type of additional regulation. I think there is already plenty of regulation on the books. The root problem, that the anti-gun crowd seems to always fail to acknowledge, is the fact that criminals are criminals because they don't follow the law. Any one who thinks more gun control is the solution to this sort of incident is a fool. If criminals followed the law, there wouldn't be any murders to begin with, now would there?

Yowza!! Even if they don't know where they are located via registration, what difference is it going to make? Do you really believe a citizen's group armed with AR-15's is going to stand much chance against a modern military force armed with nuke subs, fighter planes, and smart bombs?

Do you really believe that soldiers in the US Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, whatever, is going to turn their guns on their own country? If you do, you're more foolish than I thought. Do you know anyone in the armed forces? Ask them if they would turn their guns on American civilians. The military's bottom line goal is to defend the constitution, not assist in the destruction of it.

I've stated repeatedly we should examine what other industrialized nations do to reduce gun violence. So far any idea has been met with adamant oppostion and is labeled as being completely "anti-gun."

And in those other industrialized nations, GUN violence may have dropped, however other forms of violence are significantly higher. Your ideas have been met with opposition and you have been labeled anti-gun because you see no problem in stripping law abiding citizens of items they use to LEGALLY participate in their hobbies.

Good to know you have no faith in your government. Do you work for the government? Should others have as much faith in you as you do in the government you now claim is inept?

It's not necessarily a lack of faith in my government, but I definitely question every move they make, and I am suspicious of every move they make. Nope, I don't work for the government. And yes, others should ALWAYS question their government. Anyone who follows anything with blind faith is a fool. Remember, they're a government for the people. We are NOT a people for the government. Label me as a tin-foil hat wearing nutjob, I don't really care. I will continually question what they are doing, and always be suspicious of their actions.

You want an extreme example? Look at Germany. They trusted Hitler, they gave up their guns. It ended up costing 6.6 million Jews their life.

Sorry if my lack of trust in the government makes me crazy. I sure won't be a victim. And no, your label that I have "no faith in my government" did NOT start recently, so don't try and turn this into me having no trust because they don't want to take my guns.

Well goody. I'm always impressed that someone likes to point one exception to claim another is completely uninformed.

"A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

Both. A smaller capacity magazine would have allowed potential victims to stop the shooter. While that didn't happen in Sandy Hook it has happened in other instances. For some reason you refuse to believe that is a possibility despite it having been done.

Columbine happened during the last AWB, which included the magazine capacity limit.

Harris used a 12-gauge pump sawed off pump shotgun, which was fired 25 times, and a Hi-point 995 carbine with 12 ten round magazines, that was fired 96 times. Which proves magazine capacity doesn't mean squat.

Klebold had a semi-auto Tec-9, with a 52, 32, and 28 round magazine, which was shot 55 times, and a sawed off shotgun. Which proves that people who are going to commit crimes will NOT follow gun restrictions.

They murdered 12, and injured 21, during a weapons ban. They also had close to 100 IED's with them.

"A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

Another moving target. The .223 will penetrate a 1/4 inch of steel at 700 yards. That factoid was given to me by an Army Ranger. How much more power does a projectile need to be considered "high power?"

That fact may be true under the right conditions, but is disingenuous at best, given the use of "high powered" as an adjective implies that the weapon is of greater power than many or most others, when in fact most typical hunting rifle cartridges are far more powerful. Anyone with a HS education should be able to understand the basics of a cartridges relative power is based in it's mass, then velocity. Given the range of common cartridges goes from .22 up to .50, with a pretty decent dispersment along the way, clearly one can see the .223 is on the low end. But don't let facts spoil your fear mongering.

Another moving target. The .223 will penetrate a 1/4 inch of steel at 700 yards. That factoid was given to me by an Army Ranger. How much more power does a projectile need to be considered "high power?"

Here's a little ballistics lesson for you.

A .223 with a 55 grain bullet (common), which exits the muzzle at right around 3,200 feet per second, with about 1281ft/lbs of energy. At 700 yards, the velocity has dropped from 3,200 FPS to 918 FPS, and the energy has dropped from 1281 down to 118ft/lbs.

The "benchmark" for effective energy needed to drop a deer is 1000ft/lbs of energy. Which the .223 drops below after 100 yards.

What I'm trying to say here, is I'm calling bull****, unless your Army Ranger friend has some of the weakest steel on the market. I can't prove this without doing it myself, however neither can you, as you heard it from someone, you didn't actually do it yourself.

But, what makes my post different than yours is I backed it up with facts and numbers.

"A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

History has shown with EVERY SINGLE GUN BUY BACK ran by a governmental unit that the amount paid out was no where near the market value of many of the guns turned in. Do some research on that. You always like to tell others to do that and you spout off not knowing a damn thing about this.

I've never advocated banning any type of semi-auto firearm. Sadly, you continue to claim otherwise.

There in lies the problem with your improper use of nomenclature. You DID call for elimination of "assault rifles" in the hands of civilians. Then refused to admit your definition, which according to the firearms industry, was wrong when you included semi-auto military styled rifles in that category. Then going on to include the '03 Springfield and M1 Garand as "assault rifles" further proves your refusal to use proper terminlogy. So in fact YES YOU DID call for banning some semi-automatic rifles.

I always enjoy the paranoid ramblings of extremists. If the government did become as tyrannical as you believe could happen, you are delusional in believing that a militia armed with AR-15's is going to stand much of a chance against a military that has nuke subs, fighter planes, and smart bombs.

Then you must absolutely LOVE reading the absolute BS you post. Because you are the leading political mouth piece extrremist on this entire forum.

Let me say this about your nuke subs, fighter plans, and smart bombs...How long has the war lasted in Afghanistan against peasants and jihadists? Over a decade now. I see on the news they are still managing to kill our troops and at this point our answer is to leave. We are fooling ourselves if we believe we have won anything there because as soon as we leave it will be exactly as it was with the extremists back in power, either officially or by use of terror to control the populace.

Your premise also assumes that a majority of the military will follow orders to fire upon the very citizens they took an oath to protect. Quite a quandry really. Follow an unlawful order and conduct military actions inside the US against its own citizens, or disobey an unlawful order and be subject to military justice. Things that make you go hmmm...

How is restricting magazines to a lesser amount punishment?

Really, it is an assault on rights previously held by law abiding citizens. The problem is the whittling away of rights from law abiding citizens and the passive agreement of those that feel it is okay or they feel unaffected by others losing their rights. If you take away something from someone that has done nothing wrong it is in fact a punishment. When previously that something was legal and the law abiding users had done nothing wrong to cause them to lose it.

I have no problem with that.

You however, will most likely NEVER end private sales of guns from neighbor to neighbor, friend to friend, and so on.

My son just helped a friend of his sell a pistol. He ran prospective buyers through the state's online criminal history check and found one of them was not the kind of guy that he wanted to sell a gun to. So, you see, some people will run their own checks, even if the law doesn't call for them.

No, I claimed that semi-auto rifles previously used by the miltary could have been considered the assault rifles of their era.

Yes, you incorrectly said that. But you also early on called for not allowing civilians to own what you incorrectly identified as "assault rifles." Hence, banning them.

This is relevant if one believes the firearms industry is the final arbiter in weapons vocabulary.

Okay, now you are just being obtuse. Of course the profession that makes and uses something is the final word on what those items are called. Seriously you sound like a complete moron here when you say ridiculous things like the firearms industry isn't the expert on the firearms they manufacture.

I'm not the one who brought up the hypothetical someone using nukes.

No, you brought up ridiculous comparisons like how purchasing potato chips is regulated as to type and quantity you are allowed to possess, comparing explosives to firearms, and then playing the race card by introducing a different shooting incident that has zero comparison to Sandy Hook. Yep, you have stayed right on topic.

I'm not sure what point you are making here. I'm not the one advocating making it easier to own fully auto weapons. Though your description of what it takes to own one only shows the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute and that restrictions are very much capable of being enacted.

The facts are that the 2nd Ammendment mentions no specific types of firearms at all. One could just as easily make the case that ANY law restricting firearms from private citizenship is a violation of the constitution.

I have not advocated making the owning of fully automatic weapons easier. Although the facts how that legally owned fully automatic weapons are NOT used in criminal activities. Only 2 murders have been committed with legally owned machine guns since the new regulations went into effect in 1934. One of those murders was committed by a police officer using his personally owned sub-machine gun. Add to this the fact that there are over 240,000 legally owned machine guns in the country, roughly half by civilians and half by law enforcement. So once again, LEGALLY OWNED firearms and NOT the problem.
It's not hypothetical. A shotgun with buckshot is chosen by police departments and militaries the world over for its close range killing ability. The shotgun is also a favorite for home defense because of that same ability.
It was a hypothetical in the context you used it. The context was the ability to kill numerous individuals at one time

Funny. I stated those weapons would have been considered the assault weapons of their era. At which time you immediately broke out a new definition.

And you were wrong then, wrong now, and you will be wrong forever. Further if you still believe the drivel you spewed then you support Feinstein's attempts to ban those sporting rifles. THANK YOU FOR FINALLY OPENLY ADMITTING IT.

Both. A smaller capacity magazine would have allowed potential victims to stop the shooter. While that didn't happen in Sandy Hook it has happened in other instances. For some reason you refuse to believe that is a possibility despite it having been done.

Nice HYPOTHETICAL situation. The fact is if the shooter hadn't stolen the guns, killed his mother, stole her car, broke into the locked school, killed students and teachers in violation of laws you fail to see criminals and the mentally ill simply don't follow we wouldn't even be discussing this...Would we.

Sure you have. Several times.

Only to point out the ludicrous nature of your hypotheticals.

Your turn. This is fun watching your positions change and become more extreme.

Not extreme at all. It's too bad that being consistent is seen as extreme. Where your tactics of making up stories, lying, using idiotic, rambling, irrelevant comparisons to assault potato chips and explosives, refusing to see that the industry that manufactures firearms is in fact the expert on firearms nomenclature, and diverting into a completely irrelevant shooting so you could play the race card, have danced all over the place and shown how extreme your anti-gun stance is.

As a Patrol Sgt., I will tell you that I'm more afraid of someone armed with a knife than a gun. I have been shot at without result, but have been "cut" with a knife. Some may call me lucky, but I would argue that anytime I get hurt, I was unlucky.

I saw a police officer training video in which a trained, veteran officer was up against a man with a knife. This was all gun with a fake pistol and a rubber knife of course. The results were if the man with the knife was within 21 feet of the officer, and the offcier's gun was in his holster, the man with the knife won every time. No matter was defensve moves were made by the officer. The man with the knife got multiple stabs in before the officer had a chance to draw his weapon.

I can tell you this has always tainted my thought process about any violent encounter I may find myself in. My dad always said anyone that pulls a knife in a fight knows how to use it, most shooters aren't as good as they believe they are.

I saw a police officer training video in which a trained, veteran officer was up against a man with a knife. This was all gun with a fake pistol and a rubber knife of course. The results were if the man with the knife was within 21 feet of the officer, and the offcier's gun was in his holster, the man with the knife won every time. No matter was defensve moves were made by the officer. The man with the knife got multiple stabs in before the officer had a chance to draw his weapon.

I can tell you this has always tainted my thought process about any violent encounter I may find myself in. My dad always said anyone that pulls a knife in a fight knows how to use it, most shooters aren't as good as they believe they are.

Your dad was right! Most people with guns rely on the gun itself, and less on their skill. Subjects with knifes, more than less of the time, know what they are doing. Don't ever let your guard down because the suspect is "just armed with a knife.

“Guys if you get hurt, we’ll help you. If you get sick we’ll treat you. If you want to bitch and moan, then all I can tell you is to flick the sand out of your slit, suck it up or get the hell out!”
- Capt. Marc Cox CFD

Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.
-WINSTON CHURCHILL

I saw a police officer training video in which a trained, veteran officer was up against a man with a knife. This was all gun with a fake pistol and a rubber knife of course. The results were if the man with the knife was within 21 feet of the officer, and the offcier's gun was in his holster, the man with the knife won every time. No matter was defensve moves were made by the officer. The man with the knife got multiple stabs in before the officer had a chance to draw his weapon.

I can tell you this has always tainted my thought process about any violent encounter I may find myself in. My dad always said anyone that pulls a knife in a fight knows how to use it, most shooters aren't as good as they believe they are.

If I were a police officer this would be an issue. In my case I will have the option to run away. Then it becomes a foot race.

Here is my two cents on the gun control issue. As a vet with over 13 years on the job, 95% of the time that I have dealt criminal suspects with any type of guns, have either had an illegal firearm, been carrying the firearm in an illegal manner, or were already convict felons and therefore should have not been in possession of a firearm in the first place. I have come across owners of legally owned fire arms use a crime i.e. domestic assault. Gun control laws have not stopped the 95% of the guns I come across from being in possession of these subjects. I hate to tell you but these subjects don't care what laws they are breaking. The courts don't hold these suspect accountable for their actions. I don't think that any new laws will stop any new "gun violence" from occurring. What I do fear is that any new laws which restrict law abiding citizens from possessing any "assault weapons" or any high cap mags will only weaken their rights and effect their safety.

That being said something needs to be done to prevent "nuts" from getting their hands on firearms but it should be done in a manner that doesn't step on the rest of the citizens Second Amendment rights. I also believe that a one week waiting period to purchase a new firearm (long guns and pistols) will help prevent crimes of passion. Call it a cool down period.

There is a middle ground out there but a doubt the politicians will find it.

“Guys if you get hurt, we’ll help you. If you get sick we’ll treat you. If you want to bitch and moan, then all I can tell you is to flick the sand out of your slit, suck it up or get the hell out!”
- Capt. Marc Cox CFD

Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.
-WINSTON CHURCHILL

The consistency is the mindset that "nothing is perfect, so we should do nothing."

WRONG. Until we know what the problems are, we can't come up with the right solution. 99% of the people calling for bans and restrictions are just going through kneejerk reactions without ANY facts on the matter. They just want something done RIGHT NOW, so they get a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Two more thoughts/quotes that I think sum up my thoughts on gun control and our rights under the Constitution.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." ~~ George Washington

" The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people. It is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-lest it come to dominate our lives and interests " Patrick Henry

“Guys if you get hurt, we’ll help you. If you get sick we’ll treat you. If you want to bitch and moan, then all I can tell you is to flick the sand out of your slit, suck it up or get the hell out!”
- Capt. Marc Cox CFD

Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.
-WINSTON CHURCHILL

And I bought a shotgun, brand new in the box from a dealer at a gun show in Wisconsin and filled out paperwork and he called and did the criminal background check on me. Perhaps the gun show issue is a LOCAL state issue in YOU area. Fix YOUR state and stop making assumptions about everywhere based on your experience there.

Or it was a long time ago. Current law requires dealers to do the same paperwork at a gun show as in their own shops. That's federal law. On top of that, 17 states have laws requiring paperwork even for private sales.

I have NEVER, and I mean NEVER, bought a gun from an FFL licensed dealer that there wasn't paperwork and a background check involved.

In fairness, that's taking it a little far. Basically what he's saying is that if it's a semi-auto designed for military use, it's an assault weapon. That would exclude nearly any hunting rifle, including the Ruger Mini-14 (which Obama has listed in his previous plans) and all .22's that I know of.

The last semi-auto rifle designed for military use that comes to mind would be either the M1 Carbine or the Garand. AR-15s, for instance, were not designed for military use. Nor were any of the "scary rifles" frequently cited as "assault weapons".

If you take the first part and combine "assault" and "rifle", then a number of rifles would fit that description. Muskets, bolt actions, etc. would be defined as an assault rifle.

The point is that there's no need to define an "assault rifle". It already has a pretty specific meaning in context and it's already a Class III firearm thus highly regulated. It's the arbitrary definition of "assault weapon" created by anti-gun advocates that warrants a closer look. To date, every "assault weapon" definition that's gotten into law is mostly about superficial features that have nothing to do with their functionality.

I call bullsh|t. A factory loaded .223 out of a standard barrel will just about penetrate cardboard at 700 yards. You might punch through mild steel with a custom load out of a match grade custom barrel but that's about the only way it's going to happen.

How much more power does a projectile need to be considered "high power?"

One of the defining characteristics of assault rifles (which an AR-15 is not) is that they fire intermediate cartridges. Common among those is the .223 which is less powerful than your grandfather's 30-06 (the round used by the M1 Garand battle rifle) and the popular .308 hunting cartridge (the round used by the M14 battle rifle).

I call bullsh|t. A factory loaded .223 out of a standard barrel will just about penetrate cardboard at 700 yards. You might punch through mild steel with a custom load out of a match grade custom barrel but that's about the only way it's going to happen.

One of the defining characteristics of assault rifles (which an AR-15 is not) is that they fire intermediate cartridges. Common among those is the .223 which is less powerful than your grandfather's 30-06 (the round used by the M1 Garand battle rifle) and the popular .308 hunting cartridge (the round used by the M14 battle rifle).

“Guys if you get hurt, we’ll help you. If you get sick we’ll treat you. If you want to bitch and moan, then all I can tell you is to flick the sand out of your slit, suck it up or get the hell out!”
- Capt. Marc Cox CFD

Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.
-WINSTON CHURCHILL

Do you really believe that soldiers in the US Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, whatever, is going to turn their guns on their own country? If you do, you're more foolish than I thought. Do you know anyone in the armed forces? Ask them if they would turn their guns on American civilians. The military's bottom line goal is to defend the constitution, not assist in the destruction of it. .

Wasn't it in Ft Hood, Army Camp in Texas where this happened? A soldier turning on his own...

Wasn't it in Ft Hood, Army Camp in Texas where this happened? A soldier turning on his own...

Yes, a rare occurrence.

Different circumstances. You're talking about one man, who clearly had some issues, turning and firing on fellow soldiers. I'm talking a platoon of soldiers being ordered to turn their weapons on civilians who don't comply. Sounds feasible? Not in my eyes.

"A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

I call bullsh|t. A factory loaded .223 out of a standard barrel will just about penetrate cardboard at 700 yards. You might punch through mild steel with a custom load out of a match grade custom barrel but that's about the only way it's going to happen.

I believe my "expert" more than you.

Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal

One of the defining characteristics of assault rifles (which an AR-15 is not) is that they fire intermediate cartridges. Common among those is the .223 which is less powerful than your grandfather's 30-06 (the round used by the M1 Garand battle rifle) and the popular .308 hunting cartridge (the round used by the M14 battle rifle).

Didn't say the round was more powerful than a .30-06 or .308. I said from a reliable source the round could penetrate 1/4" steel at 700 yards.

So what is the criteria for a round to transition from an intermediate cartridge to being considered high powered? Given that innocent human targets are the concern, why is that nomenclature relevant?

Do you really believe that soldiers in the US Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, whatever, is going to turn their guns on their own country? If you do, you're more foolish than I thought. Do you know anyone in the armed forces? Ask them if they would turn their guns on American civilians. The military's bottom line goal is to defend the constitution, not assist in the destruction of it.

No I don't. Yet we are constantly being told by conspiracy wackos that is why the citizens need to be armed with the most powerful weapons they can acquire.

Just a few posts past yours is this from Bull321:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." ~~ George Washington

" The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people. It is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-lest it come to dominate our lives and interests " Patrick Henry

Which is it? Should we fear our own government or not? I would like you guys to get on the same page.

No I don't. Yet we are constantly being told by conspiracy wackos that is why the citizens need to be armed with the most powerful weapons they can acquire.
Key phrase here, conspiracy whackos. To compare any of us here to the conspiracy theorists, is utter nonsense. Conspiracy theorists use the same tactics as the media, they pray on the emotional response they get from being over the top, screaming, yelling, over-talking every. Look at the Alex Jones and Piers Morgan interview. Alex Jones had some very valid points, and was doing a great job trying to make Piers Morgan answer his questions instead of divert. Until Jones lost his f|_|cking mind and started mocking Piers and screaming.

Just a few posts past yours is this from Bull321:

Which is it? Should we fear our own government or not? I would like you guys to get on the same page. The fact of the matter, is we the people should not have to fear a government in which they are supposed to protect our rights. I don't necessarily fear the government, however I question a lot of their answers and take none of what they tell me at face value.

As far as being on the same page, Why? Why do we have to be on the same page to agree on certain things? For example, I question the government and the moves they make. Bull may or may not. Why does that mean that we can't agree on the fact that it's Unconstitutional to ban, limit, or in anyway restrict my rights or his rights as a law abiding citizen to own semi-automatic firearms? To own 15, 20, 30 round magazines?

There's no reason Bull and I, or myself and anyone, have to agree on the grounds or premise to want to or be able to work together to accomplish the same end goal, or to have the same feelings on something such as gun control.

You're also making a blanket statement about why you think I want the right to own whatever I please. It's not entirely about fearing tyranny in the government. That really only covers about 2% of it. the other 98% simply boils down to the fact that I absolutely REFUSE to be a victim of a crime, when the constitution guarantees my right to bear arms and protect myself, my family, or stranger on the street. I will not be a victim. I hope to never, NEVER in my life, have to fire my weapon at a human being. However if it comes down to me or my family dying, or the criminal dying, I can tell you for damn sure it isn't going to me be.

Still curious as to why you won't address my post, post number 441 to be exact, on the terminology of an assault weapon. Is it because you realize you've been proven wrong, so you're going to use the 3rd grade tactic of ignoring it?

"A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY